4 ms·

A lot of people in Europe absolutely have a problem with legal immigration, with asylum seekers particularly maligned. Specifically, the rise of far-right part

A lot of people in Europe absolutely have a problem with legal immigration, with asylum seekers particularly maligned. Specifically, the rise of far-right parties in Scandinavia, Germany and France is very much a reaction to legal immigration from Arab and African countries. The argument is not "they're stealing our jobs", but "they're abusing our welfare benefits, driving up crime and raping our women".

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
1) Not all asylum seekers are legal immigrants. Legal means you have obtained an entry visa before crossing the border. 2) Even huge amounts of legal asylum seekers can end up straining the already thin welfare state, so it's only normal that taxpayers paying for the welfare state, ask their politicians "where are you goanna house all these newly arrived asylum seekers when even citizens and taxpayers are struggling with housing?" or "how do you know all those unvetted people you're letting in aren't criminals or if they're compatible with our culture and values so that we and our children can feel safe in public?" So when politicians provide no answers to those questions, how are you surprised voters aren't taking this well and choosing the extreme right?
- decimalenough 2y ago
  I'm not sure who you're asking, but I'm not surprised at all.
- rat87 2y ago
  1) no it means legally seeking asylum under the legal process 2) Maybe build more housing? Maybe hire some of the new immigrants to build more housing. They're not unvetted because they are going through a vetting process. Statistically we know most aren't criminals.
absolutelastone 2y ago
Is an asylum seeker really legal if their claim is a stretch and they are in fact just an economic migrant? Seems like an arguable category that should be treated separately. Though I agree there appear to be plenty of people in Europe who want to restrict legal immigration too. Is this taboo there now too?
- rat87 2y ago
  > Is an asylum seeker really legal Yes. You answered your own question. A person who is her legally is here legally. If their claim is denied (and I'd argue in many cases the bias would be towards denying valid claims then the other way around) and they refused to leave then they'd be an unathorized immigrant without legal right to stay in the country. But before then they are explicitly there legally.
  - absolutelastone 2y ago
    Taking words out of context generally never forms the basis of a good argument. For example here you cropped out the commission of immigration fraud, which leads me to doubt you accurately answered my question. In the US at least, such behavior can lead to punishments well beyond denial of the application. Are you saying in Europe it is fair play? Either way of course the point relevant to the thread is whether people are justifiable in viewing such applicants as illegal vs legal.
    - rat87 2y ago
      Fraud is lying Having your amnesty application rejected (whether the court judged fairly or too harshly) is not in any way or shape fraud. Law is complex and many refugees and asylum seekers don't fully understand the law. Even hoping it applies to you optimistically would not be fraud. Fraud is only when you purposely lie to try to gain the right to stay here. Such things happen but not nearly as often as anti immigrant people claim. Something that seems to happen more often is anti immigrant politicians lying and trying to break the law in order to restrict immigration such as by withdrawing TPS by claiming unsafe countries are now safe(so people can be deported)
      - absolutelastone 2y ago
        Indeed fraud certainly is lying. And sure they might also be rejected for other reasons like being a convicted criminal. In the US we also have "willful misrepresentation", which I will count with fraud informally. But my comment, again, specified economic migrants. They know they are economic migrants. The fraud is to claim otherwise on one's application in the name of "hoping optimistically" that this other story will suffice. It sure is hard to maintain focus on this point.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago

1) Not all asylum seekers are legal immigrants. Legal means you have obtained an entry visa before crossing the border. 2) Even huge amounts of legal asylum seekers can end up straining the already thin welfare state, so it's only normal that taxpayers paying for the welfare state, ask their politicians "where are you goanna house all these newly arrived asylum seekers when even citizens and taxpayers are struggling with housing?" or "how do you know all those unvetted people you're letting in aren't criminals or if they're compatible with our culture and values so that we and our children can feel safe in public?" So when politicians provide no answers to those questions, how are you surprised voters aren't taking this well and choosing the extreme right?

decimalenough 2y ago
I'm not sure who you're asking, but I'm not surprised at all.
rat87 2y ago
1) no it means legally seeking asylum under the legal process 2) Maybe build more housing? Maybe hire some of the new immigrants to build more housing. They're not unvetted because they are going through a vetting process. Statistically we know most aren't criminals.

absolutelastone 2y ago

Is an asylum seeker really legal if their claim is a stretch and they are in fact just an economic migrant? Seems like an arguable category that should be treated separately. Though I agree there appear to be plenty of people in Europe who want to restrict legal immigration too. Is this taboo there now too?

rat87 2y ago
> Is an asylum seeker really legal Yes. You answered your own question. A person who is her legally is here legally. If their claim is denied (and I'd argue in many cases the bias would be towards denying valid claims then the other way around) and they refused to leave then they'd be an unathorized immigrant without legal right to stay in the country. But before then they are explicitly there legally.
- absolutelastone 2y ago
  Taking words out of context generally never forms the basis of a good argument. For example here you cropped out the commission of immigration fraud, which leads me to doubt you accurately answered my question. In the US at least, such behavior can lead to punishments well beyond denial of the application. Are you saying in Europe it is fair play? Either way of course the point relevant to the thread is whether people are justifiable in viewing such applicants as illegal vs legal.
  - rat87 2y ago
    Fraud is lying Having your amnesty application rejected (whether the court judged fairly or too harshly) is not in any way or shape fraud. Law is complex and many refugees and asylum seekers don't fully understand the law. Even hoping it applies to you optimistically would not be fraud. Fraud is only when you purposely lie to try to gain the right to stay here. Such things happen but not nearly as often as anti immigrant people claim. Something that seems to happen more often is anti immigrant politicians lying and trying to break the law in order to restrict immigration such as by withdrawing TPS by claiming unsafe countries are now safe(so people can be deported)
    - absolutelastone 2y ago
      Indeed fraud certainly is lying. And sure they might also be rejected for other reasons like being a convicted criminal. In the US we also have "willful misrepresentation", which I will count with fraud informally. But my comment, again, specified economic migrants. They know they are economic migrants. The fraud is to claim otherwise on one's application in the name of "hoping optimistically" that this other story will suffice. It sure is hard to maintain focus on this point.